Save the small guitar builders petition!

[webe123]

Please sign the petition to help save the smaller guitar builders

Read and sign the petition

 

I created this petition to try to draw some attention and gain some leverage for the builders who are being threatened by Gibson and Fender's recent legal activities.

 

This petiton takes NO STANCE on the legal merits of the case. Rather, it advances the notion that cracking down on these 50+ year old designs will hurt consumers in the end.

 

We don't praise or demonize anyone - this is about us and our interests. Even if you think "PRS had it coming", I urge you to at least read the wording before making up your mind. This isn't only about PRS, but about smaller builders like Anderson, Lentz, Suhr, Grosh and others.

 

What do I hope to gain? I don't know. I started this with the idea of filing it as a 'friend of the court' brief, but thanks to a quick education by Attorney Schefman I realize that won't be able to happen.

 

However, I'm putting this out there in hopes that the 17 or 18 builders who have banded together to fight Fender can use it as influence in their case.

 

Essentially, I want to make sure that quality alternatives to Fender and Gibson continue to exist.

 

Please read it and consider signing it.

 

IMPORTANT: if you go to other guitar boards such as the Les Paul Forum, Fender Forum, Guitar Diner or elsewhere, please consider copying and pasting my remarks. The more people that see this, the better.

 

Thanks

 

__________________

 

Here is the link to the petition:

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/guitarTM/petition.html

[Phait]

What happened to Fender? I won't buy anything not name brand, personally.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

First let me say that I am behind the small builders entirely.

 

But let me also say that, in my opinion, there are two things wrong here.

 

#1. Fender and Gibson did pioneer these designs.

 

#2. Our opinions are not gemaine to the case, any more than the opinions of those who like to steal music via illegal distribution were germaine to those proceedings.

 

Any student of guitar history will have seen some of the early California guitar designs that, arguably, pre date Fender, which incorporate many Fender design decisions. Should they be able to copyright the designs? Well, why -shouldn't- they be allowed to copyright them?

 

I think that it opens some strange doors... what if Ford decides to copyright 4 wheels, a steering wheel, and a windshield design?

 

Not a single small guitar maker HAS to use a Fender or Gibson shape. They offer these lines because they sell. Maybe Gibson and Fender have a point on that basis alone. I mean PRS makes some of the most beautiful guitars on the planet, why does ne need to make a single cutaway? Does this indeed use a Gibson design idea to take sales away from Gibson? Hmmm.....

 

So I can see both sides of this issue, and I'm not going to come down un Fender or Gibson just because they are big. That is lame. They still have rights.

 

I can only hope that we get a knowlegable judge who can see the forest past the trees.

 

Bill

[cosmo115]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

First let me say that I am behind the small builders entirely.

 

But let me also say that, in my opinion, there are two things wrong here.

 

#1. Fender and Gibson did pioneer these designs.

 

#2. Our opinions are not gemaine to the case, any more than the opinions of those who like to steal music via illegal distribution were germaine to those proceedings.

 

Any student of guitar history will have seen some of the early California guitar designs that, arguably, pre date Fender, which incorporate many Fender design decisions. Should they be able to copyright the designs? Well, why -shouldn't- they be allowed to copyright them?

 

I think that it opens some strange doors... what if Ford decides to copyright 4 wheels, a steering wheel, and a windshield design?

 

Not a single small guitar maker HAS to use a Fender or Gibson shape. They offer these lines because they sell. Maybe Gibson and Fender have a point on that basis alone. I mean PRS makes some of the most beautiful guitars on the planet, why does ne need to make a single cutaway? Does this indeed use a Gibson design idea to take sales away from Gibson? Hmmm.....

 

So I can see both sides of this issue, and I'm not going to come down un Fender or Gibson just because they are big. That is lame. They still have rights.

 

I can only hope that we get a knowlegable judge who can see the forest past the trees.

 

Bill

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_100.gif

[Shoes]

This is not as clear cut as made to appear.... consider what you're signing and the implications it carries.

 

As very small time luthier I think about the copyright infringements and potential grief I might bring myself in cranking out a LP, Strat or Tele. It's not a production affair and only represents my love of instruments and woodworking.

 

To build a production around the sweat and toil of another visionary seems to stretch this beyond passion to pure profit at the expense of those who deserve the reserve of this benchmark creation.

 

I'm perfectly fine with all LPs belonging to a "Gibson" company, Strats, Tele.. are Fenders make no mistake about that.

 

These are devices used as instruments of art and creativity NOT life saving pharmaceuticals that hold the key to preserving the human race. What each manufacturer makes of their design is a signature of 'their' art and I would hope that if I were able to revolutionize a small corner of the world with my creations, I too would be able to say that which bares my name is the actual experience.

 

It's far to easy to make small modifications to a design and beat the copyright or patent protection legislation and for the matter of deliberately trying to "steal" what is legally and otherwise somebody else's idea or concept unnecessarily small and thoughtless.

 

As can be said of all of the modern worlds material goods: the issue of waste and excess is the product of those without innovation and purpose.

 

Think about that before you sign something that diminishes everyone's incentive to be creative.

[webe123]

Originally posted by Guitars are like shoes. But louder.:

This is not as clear cut as made to appear.... consider what you're signing and the implications it carries.

 

As very small time luthier I think about the copyright infringements and potential grief I might bring myself in cranking out a LP, Strat or Tele. It's not a production affair and only represents my love of instruments and woodworking.

 

To build a production around the sweat and toil of another visionary seems to stretch this beyond passion to pure profit at the expense of those who deserve the reserve of this benchmark creation.

 

I'm perfectly fine with all LPs belonging to a "Gibson" company, Strats, Tele.. are Fenders make no mistake about that.

 

These are devices used as instruments of art and creativity NOT life saving pharmaceuticals that hold the key to preserving the human race. What each manufacturer makes of their design is a signature of 'their' art and I would hope that if I were able to revolutionize a small corner of the world with my creations, I too would be able to say that which bares my name is the actual experience.

 

It's far to easy to make small modifications to a design and beat the copyright or patent protection legislation and for the matter of deliberately trying to "steal" what is legally and otherwise somebody else's idea or concept unnecessarily small and thoughtless.

 

As can be said of all of the modern worlds material goods: the issue of waste and excess is the product of those without innovation and purpose.

 

Think about that before you sign something that diminishes everyone's incentive to be creative.

The way you talk, people are crooks who sign this. Let me fill you in on something. In the first place the Bigsby guitar was the FIRST one who had the les paul design, so please don't come off spouting that you are ripping off Fender designs or Gibson designs, because if the truth be told, all three of these guys were building electrics and visited bigsbys facilities. Second, no it is not life saving drugs that we are talking about, but it CAN and WILL affect a lot of companies today, if these frivolous charges are applied across the industry. Third, you talk of innovation, but there has been very little in innovation in the last 50 years when it comes to bodystyles. If there was really ways to "reinvent the wheel" I think they would have been made in the last 50 years. Classic Body shapes are still around for a REASON...actually a couple...comfort and looks. This is why I think it would be foolish for the industry to have only two companies producing these bodyshapes, because when they have no reason to compete against anyone else, prices rise and quality goes down.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"The way you talk, people are crooks who sign this. Let me fill you in on something. "

 

It is good to be pasionate about something. But vigorous assertion may not be the best way to make your point. If you want people to be on your side, present your points, document them, and let people make up their own minds.

 

As I said above, I'm on the side of the small guitar makers (and even the medium sized guys like PRS.) But if Gibson and Fender do have a case that they can prove, then I am also for them getting what is legally theirs under the laws.

 

We can point to many examples of people who did it first, before the acknowleged or recognised 'inventers' or originators, or patent holders. You can do this in almost any field.

 

Some had legal rights that were trampled or overturned(Tesla, anyone??? radio patents, pre Marconni?? AC patents? How about the original inventor of FM radio, who got screwed..., the list is staggering)

 

...and some did things without bothering to get the legal papers, and were therefore scooped by someone else who did bother to do the search and file the paperwork.

 

Some even did the inventing under the auspices of a larger company that they worked for, and the company got the patents. (I knew 2 guys who developed 300 patents for Koppers before they struck out on their own. I spent quite a bit of time on a lighting design team, only to find our work patented by the president of that division of the company that we worked for.)

 

From a practical standpoint, I think that these guitar lawsuits are stupid. But they are also not going to put any good guitar makers out of business. Clone makers may not be so happy, though.

 

I'm dismayed by the blind patent judge who awarded that CD duplication patent to ClearChannel. Lame.

 

But if Fender wants to pantent the shape of the Strat, Tele, Jaguar, Precision.... well, it is just a shape. I can make something close that suits all the requirements of comfort and practicality and be well within the law.

 

Where I hope that the cases are tossed as being frivolous and without merit, one never knows. I would not have expected a ruling against PRS, given the long historic tradition of that general shape being used in guitars, from Gretsch and Guild back in the day (almost exact copies of the LP) to Univox and all the other chinsey 'close' guitars of the ensuing years. But there you have it.

 

Bill

[webe123]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

"The way you talk, people are crooks who sign this. Let me fill you in on something. "

 

It is good to be pasionate about something. But vigorous assertion may not be the best way to make your point. If you want people to be on your side, present your points, document them, and let people make up their own minds.

 

As I said above, I'm on the side of the small guitar makers (and even the medium sized guys like PRS.) But if Gibson and Fender do have a case that they can prove, then I am also for them getting what is legally theirs under the laws.

 

We can point to many examples of people who did it first, before the acknowleged or recognised 'inventers' or originators, or patent holders. You can do this in almost any field.

 

Some had legal rights that were trampled or overturned(Tesla, anyone??? radio patents, pre Marconni?? AC patents? How about the original inventor of FM radio, who got screwed..., the list is staggering)

 

...and some did things without bothering to get the legal papers, and were therefore scooped by someone else who did bother to do the search and file the paperwork.

 

Some even did the inventing under the auspices of a larger company that they worked for, and the company got the patents. (I knew 2 guys who developed 300 patents for Koppers before they struck out on their own. I spent quite a bit of time on a lighting design team, only to find our work patented by the president of that division of the company that we worked for.)

 

From a practical standpoint, I think that these guitar lawsuits are stupid. But they are also not going to put any good guitar makers out of business. Clone makers may not be so happy, though.

 

I'm dismayed by the blind patent judge who awarded that CD duplication patent to ClearChannel. Lame.

 

But if Fender wants to pantent the shape of the Strat, Tele, Jaguar, Precision.... well, it is just a shape. I can make something close that suits all the requirements of comfort and practicality and be well within the law.

 

Where I hope that the cases are tossed as being frivolous and without merit, one never knows. I would not have expected a ruling against PRS, given the long historic tradition of that general shape being used in guitars, from Gretsch and Guild back in the day (almost exact copies of the LP) to Univox and all the other chinsey 'close' guitars of the ensuing years. But there you have it.

 

Bill

Well sorry that my comments to you sound negative, but I will stand by what I have said. Not that I meant to offend anyone, but he did act like people were doing something wrong when he made his post. So I made a point to correct it. Now as far as fender or gibson defending their property? Well to me, it is a little late to start defending something that you let slip by for years and then all of a sudden want compensation for it. Gibson and fender both have defended their headstock design, but their bodyshapes were allowed to slip by. This is why I believe that it is going to be extra hard for a company like gibson or fender to ask for compensation on something they failed to protect. Just my two cents.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

".. I believe that it is going to be extra hard for a company like gibson or fender to ask for compensation on something they failed to protect. Just my two cents. "

 

Though I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure the courts will see it that way, just because I don't know that they recognise time as a factor. In some areas, such as labor negotiations, past practice counts for a lot. But in design? I just don't know.

 

"Now as far as fender or gibson defending their property? Well to me, it is a little late to start defending something that you let slip by for years and then all of a sudden want compensation for it."

 

Interestingly,when I was a kid nobody copied those classic styles. There were jap and Italian instruments that were vaguely similar, but no clones. It was not until the late 70s that exact copies from people like Ibanez showed up on the scene. I still remember the bolt on neck copies that Ibanez made of Flying Vs and Explorers that were more accurate in layout and components than the Gibson re-issues of the time. At the time I thought that it was because the patents ran out on the original designs.

 

Then suddely there were low dollar Strat and P-bass and Les Paul copies everywhere.

 

Now that Gibson and Fender are competing for the low dollar market, I guess that they want to drive the clone makers out of the entry level business. I don't know that this is a bad thing. Let a cheap guitar look like a cheap guitar, and stop selling the idea that if it looks like a Strat it is a Strat? Not an idea that upsets me.

 

And I see that logically having to also apply to the boutique guitar makers and some of the high end makers. But I don't see them being hurt by it, so much as it possibly stirring a new era of innovative and interesting body design. Bass makers have been doing this for 10 years, maybe it's time for the guitar makers to join it. Personally I like the Warmoth Soloist design better than my Les paul or my Strat, in feel and balance. The PRS guitars feel great as do some of the Brian Moore offerings. I go to the trade shows and get to play a lot of guitars, and there are quite a few comfortable original designs ou there.

 

What I am saying is that if the courts should rule for Fender and Gibson, it will be no hardship to the good guitar makers. In fact, fewer Strat and Les Paul copies mean fewer people seeing Strat and Les paul styles,a nd possibly resulting in those styles becoming less popular. Lots of ways this thing could go.

 

One thing is sure, it is great fodder for discussion, if we choose to discuss.

 

Bill

[Shoes]

Your comments (initially) didn't sound negative and my response was in no way directed at you nor intended as a condemnation of those who signed this petition.

 

I take exception to your implications

 

Simply put: This lawsuit will have far reaching implications beyond the music industry and should therefore be taken with the just concern it deserves.

Take this outcome and transfer it to any other manufactured product and see what happens to the global economy.

Oh I'm quite sure that before North America turns into the market place that exists in China or Korea we'll put all the legislation back in place to protect the corporate interests... but at what cost do we play such a game and who is to gain from all of this.

It's rarely the consumer.

 

Be considerate, keep and open mind, look at the big picture.

[timrocker]

Bpark is making a great deal of sense here. I would only add one thing and that is that the question of "why now?" is a very easy one to answer. Because now is now.

[fantasticsound]

The following is my comment included with my signature on the petition:

 

Although technically, the petition author alluded to the flaw in his/her analogy vs. tire shape, there does seem to be a finite (and small, at that) number of guitar body designs that yield a comfortable, accessible instrument. Gibson and Fender ought ot be able to trademark their headstock designs (for aesthetics only), but I believe body shape is better compared to car body style. Trademarked body styles are limited to specific aesthetic designs. You wouldn't, for example, give Ford the sole trademark on 4 door sedans. The body shape issue, in my opinion, is closer to this analogy than to the tire comparison. It better illustrates why the court's decision for the plaintiff, Gibson Guitars, vs. PRS, overstepped the bounds of the law. Going on the decision in that case, auto makers should be suing one another left and right for the seeming convergence in design of many competing models.

The arguement that anyone can trademark a single-cut instrument is ludicrous. That a federal judge upheld this notion shows how ignorant the court can be in technical matters.

 

Had they ruled on the exact scale dimensions for a Les Paul then I would understand. But the body shape of the PRS single-cut was markedly different in it's flattened appearance, vs. the LP. The same can be said of McInturff and Yamaha designs that have a pronounced upper bout vs. the LP.

 

I've seen a lot closer styling between cars. Some manufacturers do sue over design, but it should be apparent that basic shapes should not be defensible as trademarks.

 

bpark - Your acceptance of this ruling as the final say in the conversation is just silly. PRS has already filed an appeal. I can only hope that an appeals court sees this for the nonsense it is. For that matter, I hope PRS has a lawyer who can adequately explain why this does not fall under the cited statute.

[timrocker]

Now that, I get. I mean that it should be made clear how much different a PRS Singlecut is from a Les Paul.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"bpark - Your acceptance of this ruling as the final say in the conversation is just silly. PRS has already filed an appeal. I can only hope that an appeals court sees this for the nonsense it is. For that matter, I hope PRS has a lawyer who can adequately explain why this does not fall under the cited statute."

 

In no way did I take it as the final word. I expect lawyers to get rich and retire on this one. I just accepted it as where things stand right now.

 

"The arguement that anyone can trademark a single-cut instrument is ludicrous. "

 

Not so. You can attempt to patent just about anything. If the pantent search does not show any competing patent, you could be granted one. You do not have to be the inventor.

 

As an interesting sidelight, an avant guarde composer relased a cut on one of his CDs that was totally silent. Does he now have the copyright on silence? Do we owe him money for the space between tracks? Or the ClearChannel pentent on CD duping... it is just lame that it could have been granted, but it was.

 

Bill

[Shoes]

It certainly should be made clear given how close the Ibanez models of the '70's were and that PRS Singlecuts are in no way a direct copy of an LP. This is obvious but then this isn't the argument that the lawyers are having. I'll agree that it should be.

My initial point and one I hold as the line in the sand for North American manufacturers is that making a carbon copy of a design that is held in protection is an issue for us all.

 

Many guitar and bass manufactures add SC to model lines to indicate "Single Cut".

 

Still the arguement needs to be very clear and in the absence of this the court typically rules as a protectionist.

[fantasticsound]

I see, bpark. Still, you could put up a bit of fight if you disagree with the outcome, regardless of its' effect.

 

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

...As an interesting sidelight, an avant guarde composer relased a cut on one of his CDs that was totally silent. Does he now have the copyright on silence? {Unfortunately, yes!} Do we owe him money for the space between tracks? {Again, unfortunately, yes!}

 

Bill

That would be John Cage, and another thread on the SSS described the settlement of a lawsuit filed when someone else used an extended silence. Apparently there was enough evidence to suggest that the composer had infringed on the copyright of the original work. That, as well, is inherently stupid, IMO.

 

Here\'s the CNN page from Sept. 23rd, 2002 about the settlement of the lawsuit. Just Google, "John Cage lawsuit" and you'll find this and many other related pages.

[Cowbell]

I'm amazed that Gibson was able to copyright single cutaway guitars. Wasn't the Fender Eqsuire made BEFORE they made their first LP? So, they in fact didn't make the first single cutaway?

 

PRS will lose a lot of money because of this,but will come out on top.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"It certainly should be made clear given how close the Ibanez models of the '70's were..."

 

This is not relevant.

 

"... and that PRS Singlecuts are in no way a direct copy of an LP."

 

For me, this is the crux, and what I would be hammering upon. Showing pictures of single cutaway guitars from the earliest that I could find. Granted, the violations made by others may not mitigate any violation that I have committed, but this might be the best way to prove that it is not a violation.

 

As I said above, if anyone wants to protect their exact design, that seems fair to me. Even providing protection against what is obviously an attempt at a knockoff. But I cannot see any merit in a claim that any double-horned solid body is a copy of a Strat, any single cut solid is a copy of an LP. or whatever.

 

Heres the thing. I'm with you in principle, as far as helping the small builders. But you lose me when you claim that Fender or Gibson have lost the right to protect their designs just because they haven't done so yet. If the patent office grants F&G protection for their designs against copies or near copies, I'm cool with that. In fact, getting a patent on the styles for F&G may help the small builders, because then they will be in a position to show where their designs differ from the F&G designs.

 

It is the difference that is critical.

 

I can't sign what it there, because I don't agree that F&G have no rights in the matter, even though I dissagree with the current court decision and find it just plain silly, and it appears to have been made in ignorance, or by someone who ignored the common practice ongoing in the industry for 30 years or so.

 

I'd like to see a petition drafted that does not disparage F&G or try to take away their rights under the law, yet still calls for strong definitions to protect the small builders.

 

Bill

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

I see, bpark. Still, you could put up a bit of fight if you disagree with the outcome, regardless of its' effect.

 

 

Oh yes. But I have spent a long time in the entertainment industry, working in many areas. I spent a long tme providing corporate audio services, and I learned a little bit about business, and contracts, patents and copyright.

 

One of the things that you quickly learn, is to put your energies towards a positive solving of the problem rather than a lot of negativity. Look at all sides of the situation, and find the answer that satifies everyone (to one degree or another..). And in order to get everyone on board, you cannot start out by disparaging them or their position.

 

It makes little sense to try to deny that F&G have rights in this area. You might site previous similar designs, but the only reason that we know about them is because F&G were successful at bringing them to the public.

 

It is also silly to claim that any single cutaway guitar is a copy of a Les Paul.

 

So lets find a realistic middle ground.

 

Bill

[Shoes]

I think that the question is a matter of: At what point does an instrument with 6 strings become a copy of a model registered by a manufacturer... and that would be what Ibanez did.

 

Next question: How much distinction does one need to incorporate to avoid this situation.

 

Perhaps the actual question is: How much success can a manufacturer have before drawing the attention of a giant.

 

I like how you judge my point irrelevant yet purposeful when it expresses your point that was originally my point.

 

Perhaps we need Rockman66s to comment here!

 

I sure hope this isn't becoming a PRS lovers vs Gibson lovers thing because that would be utterly idiotic.

 

Please tell me this isn't the trap I've been drawn into!

[Guitarzan]

Middle ground isn't really what Gibson seems to be after. ....hello Gibson! shut up, build some great guitars and keep moving.

no one ever got anywhere looking over thier shoulder.

if you build it they will come.

[Phait]

Sooooooooo, what happened with Fender?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

"I like how you judge my point irrelevant yet purposeful when it expresses your point that was originally my point."

 

Sorry.... I meant from a legal standpoint! (oops...)

 

"How much distinction does one need to incorporate to avoid this situation. "

 

Exactly.

 

"Perhaps the actual question is: How much success can a manufacturer have before drawing the attention of a giant."

 

That would be a moving target. They didn't seem to care before, now they do. Better to get a ruling.

 

"I sure hope this isn't becoming a PRS lovers vs Gibson lovers thing because that would be utterly idiotic. Please tell me this isn't the trap I've been drawn into!"

 

Not by me. Purely discussion.

 

Bill

[Guitarzan]

this is all interesting discussion, i miss the old days when a company tried to make the best product they could and enjoyed the benefits of that work. now it seems the bottom line is all that matters. Gibson and Fender enjoy the benefits of brand recognition. an avantage over all the others. but instead of using thier resourses to further the strength of those brand names they instead waste time bickering over the shape of the products that compete with them. this is STUPID.

these are musical instruments, tone and playability should be the main concern.

i am fairly fed up with corporate crap anyway, i work for a company that used to be so proud of its products and now are only concerned with the profit margins.

and management is only concerned with thier own carreer advancement.

[webe123]

Originally posted by Guitars are like shoes. But louder.:

Your comments (initially) didn't sound negative and my response was in no way directed at you nor intended as a condemnation of those who signed this petition.

 

I take exception to your implications

 

Simply put: This lawsuit will have far reaching implications beyond the music industry and should therefore be taken with the just concern it deserves.

Take this outcome and transfer it to any other manufactured product and see what happens to the global economy.

Oh I'm quite sure that before North America turns into the market place that exists in China or Korea we'll put all the legislation back in place to protect the corporate interests... but at what cost do we play such a game and who is to gain from all of this.

It's rarely the consumer.

 

Be considerate, keep and open mind, look at the big picture.

Well I didn't know of your "intentions" because I could NOT read your mind! Now, if you say that you had no ill will tword the people signing this petition, I will accept that. But the reason I posted those comments in the first place was because YOU posted like people were doing something wrong by signing the petition and I don't think that is so. So there you have it.

 

Now to adress your other comments, I believe that competition is what keps the US economy going. Take away competition and you have a stagnated industry. (ANY industry would fit here) With no reason to innovate and no reason to compete with lower prices the consumer would only lose. It is also what drives innovation rather than limit it. The Fender and Gibson designs have not been kept the same since they have been imitated by other companies. Most of these companies found a way to improve on that design. PRS was one such company. They took a Les paul Jr. design and made their famous double cut out of it. But, would we have the double cut if there were no les paul Jr. or Ted Mcarty?? Who knows?? I simply feel that the consumer WILL benefit when more than two companies have control of classic bodyshapes that in all fairness SHOULD be in the public domain, because of so little legal action taken to protect them.

[webe123]

Originally posted by timrocker:

Bpark is making a great deal of sense here. I would only add one thing and that is that the question of "why now?" is a very easy one to answer. Because now is now.

Actually your comment does not make much sense to me at all. I could say I will sue you tommorrow.... "because tomorrow is tomorrow", but what would that mean?? To me, Fender and Gibson have waited too long to act upon their designs they wanted to protect. This makes them fair game in the "public domain" debate. I don't think we have seen the last of these lawsuits....only the beginning. And sadly, the people that will suffer the most is the consumer.

[Shoes]

You shouldn't have to read my mind to appreciate the meaning in the words because it was exceptionally clear.

 

I also don't need your acceptance to attest to the fact that I maligned nobody in making those remarks.

 

Nobody was called a thief or crook.

 

I suggested people think about both sides of this issue before signing any petition. This should be obligatory for any rational mind. (I appreciate there are some irrational minds out there and I sympathize with their potential ignorance)

 

Lastly your comments on trade and competition assume there are no trade regulations and protections within the U.S.A..(U.S. Steel, AT&T, Microsoft, drug pattents...) As a Canadian I know all too well how insulated American manufacturers and businesses have become (Lumber)from the rest of the world. I'm also aware of what the total lack of regulations will inevitably produce and that's a breakdown in the economy and subsequently society.

 

It's a bigger issue than Gibson vs PRS. They didn't matter squat in this courtroom and likely never did. The decision is a long standing one that's been played out numerous times before.

 

PRS guitars are exceptionally well made and designed.

 

There is little to substantiate the claims that Gibson "owns" the terminology "single cut" when referring to a guitar but that issue was poorly defended.

 

Petitions will do nothing here. Buy a guitar and support their legal fund.

 

Don't be such an angry person and perhaps people will listen to your story and decide to help the cause you've adopted.

 

Thanx for bringing this to my attention.

[Phait]

...

[timrocker]

Originally posted by webe123:

Originally posted by timrocker:

Bpark is making a great deal of sense here. I would only add one thing and that is that the question of "why now?" is a very easy one to answer. Because now is now.

Actually your comment does not make much sense to me at all. I could say I will sue you tommorrow.... "because tomorrow is tomorrow", but what would that mean?? To me, Fender and Gibson have waited too long to act upon their designs they wanted to protect. This makes them fair game in the "public domain" debate. I don't think we have seen the last of these lawsuits....only the beginning. And sadly, the people that will suffer the most is the consumer.

Sorry, I didn't make that point very well. What I meant to show was that I don't see any problem or flaw in Fender and Gibson's strategy of pursuing this "now". The legal question of whether these small manufacturers are in violation of patent law seems to be the driving and central thing. I also want to point out that Fender, at least, has not been tolerating knockoffs of its designs all these years. They've definitely gone after parts manufacturers over body and neck shapes before. And, some of them have started building under a licensing agreement with Fender, which I think has been good for the consumer.

 

If the question is, why is this happening now, simply as a way of questioning the credibility of Fender and Gibson's legal strategy, I would have to come back with: Why not now? Along with the assertion that it has been happening all along, just at a different legal level of action involving cease and desist letters between lawyers of firms and so on. We are hearing about it now, since this is a headline news item. But it's been a priority for Fender all along. Make sense?

[webe123]

>>You shouldn't have to read my mind to appreciate the meaning in the words because it was exceptionally clear.<<

 

First of all, it was as clear as mud to me, so you lost me there. Secondly, I don't really like being spoke down to so please refrain from that.

 

>>I also don't need your acceptance to attest to the fact that I maligned nobody in making those remarks.<<

 

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about what you think of me either! As far as my statements, they will stand and I will stand behind them.

 

>>Nobody was called a thief or crook.<<

 

At least not outright....

 

>>I suggested people think about both sides of this issue before signing any petition. This should be obligatory for any rational mind. (I appreciate there are some irrational minds out there and I sympathize with their potential ignorance)<<

 

First off, it sounds like you believe that if people do not agree with you, then it is OK to bash them. Nobody said that it was wrong to suggest that people think about both sides of an issue, but the way you have come off is FAR from neutral, I must say.

 

>>Lastly your comments on trade and competition assume there are no trade regulations and protections within the U.S.A..(U.S. Steel, AT&T, Microsoft, drug pattents...) As a Canadian I know all too well how insulated American manufacturers and businesses have become (Lumber)from the rest of the world. I'm also aware of what the total lack of regulations will inevitably produce and that's a breakdown in the economy and subsequently society.<<

 

No, my comments on trade and competition have to do with public domain! If companies such as fender and gibson do not defend their trademarks like they SHOULD have from day one, then in the US at least, it is assumed that the company in question no longer cares to protect their trademark and it becomes public domain.

 

>>It's a bigger issue than Gibson vs PRS. They didn't matter squat in this courtroom and likely never did. The decision is a long standing one that's been played out numerous times before.<<

 

No, it IS a decision on the question of public domain and when does a trademark go public if a company decides not to defend it for years. A very important legal decision that can have negative effects on the music industry and open a pandoras box of suits and countersuits! This is a quote from an article about the suit against PRS. read what major manufacturers think of it. Here is a link to the article itself:

 

http://www.playlikeapro.com/prs_singlecuts.htm

 

here is a quote from the article:

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case has such chilling implications that several guitar manufacturers and related companies including Taylor Guitars, Peavey Electronics Corp., and J. DAddario & Co. Inc. banded together to try to argue to the judge that generally guitar buyers arent confused between PRSs and Gibsons guitars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

>>PRS guitars are exceptionally well made and designed.<<

 

I own a PRS Mcarty soapbar, you wil get no argument from me there. I also own a Gibson Les Paul "the paul" with a sans lacquer finish...also a fine guitar.

 

>>There is little to substantiate the claims that Gibson "owns" the terminology "single cut" when referring to a guitar but that issue was poorly defended.<<

 

Again no argument.

 

>>Petitions will do nothing here. Buy a guitar and support their legal fund.<<

 

I don't know that and neither do you. But if it makes any difference at all, I will be glad I signed it.

 

>>Don't be such an angry person and perhaps people will listen to your story and decide to help the cause you've adopted.<<

 

Gee...all of this from someone who has practically chewed me out this entire thread...well back at ya buddy!

 

>>Thanx for bringing this to my attention.<<

 

No problem!